If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yeah, I don't think there is any probably about it. We're handing another fortune to the already crazy wealthy and just hoping they decide to return it to us at some point, rather than funnel the money to the poor and middle classes who will create demand by spending. Oh, and in the meantime, we'll continue to explode the deficit, unless we can find a way to

The economy has been growing pretty well for years now. Apparently GOP congressmen and women have not heard of the law of diminishing returns.

Then again, I suppose it is pretty unfair that private jet airplane maintenance has not been tax deductible while those stupid kids trying to get a higher education are leaving school with only $100k in debt.

Comment

Can you give examples? In my lifetime I don't think this has ever been the case. I googled it, and only found articles stating that it has only worked in models so far.

I don't know how old your are but here's a quicky - In 1997 President Clinton lower capital gain rate to 20% from 28% - revenues doubled. In 2003 Bush II lower income tax rates across the board. Deficit dropped to $163 billion from over $500 billion ( yes that IS a "b", those are ANNUAL numbers). Revenue in FY 2003 was $1,782 billion, in FY 2007 it was $2568 billion. That's an annualize growth rat of a little over 9%.

I posted a link earlier that goes into more detail and discussion how the mortgage crisis affected this.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise for to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson.

Comment

Exactly, and if you were going to be consistent you shouldn't criticize me for doing exactly what you're doing.
You've been paying the benefits of current enrollees, just like the rest of us.

? Why am I a hypocrite for wanting my fellow Americans to have a quality healthcare insurance system? Do you THINK ACA is the only possible way to achieve that?

I'd posit YOU'RE the hypocrite for basking in state provided pension and healthcare while Medicare and SS are facing massive unfunded liabilities in the next few decades. Of course, you have to worry about the unfunded liabilities CalPers is facing; good thing the market is up so dramatically under Trump - that'll help CalPers pay your checks.

Anyone who does needs their had exampled.

I see the benefits in ACA and I've posted over and over what my employee benefits are.

But let me reiterate some major points here. Like US postal workers who seem to be federal employees with employee contributions, a total of 12% of my wages have been paid to the Social Security Administration since the 1970s. I also get taxed for Medicare.

Last we argued this, ad naseum, the American worker holds federal bonds in a trust account that was $2.7 trillion. The Social Security Administration has never run at a deficit since 1983.

Here is where the hypocrisy comes in. Your retirement and your Tricare are line items in the federal budget. There are no funds for your pension. You never paid a portion of your salary into it.

You Bullseye as a retired federal employee have argued more consistently against other pension systems like teacher pensions or the state employee pension systems that this is somehow like your retirement and they are not.

I know what Paul Ryan thinks and I know what you think. I think the pensions systems that have not had contributions should go first. Like the line item expenses on the DOD for retirement gets the cuts before say the $2.7 trillion obligation and debt to the American worker gets the axe.

And perhaps this argument is too complex for you to understand. To my way of thinking you are standing in a very large glass house.

And Paul Ryan gives very little thought to the social costs when he derails a system that has been in place for close to 100 years.

Comment

Reagan created a huge deficit and the economy stalledout out during Bush. The tech boom would have happened either way under Clinton.

He did? The highest deficit he ever had, according to CBO was $221 billion. Or about $550 billion in current dollars. And don't forget a lot of that was bribing Dems to go along with his cuts, and building up a military still suffering post-Vietnam malaise.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise for to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson.

I see the benefits in ACA and I've posted over and over what my employee benefits are.

The benefits from ACA are costly and unsustainable, that's the problem. They ideas had merit but the execution screwed the pooch.

Originally posted by hplc

But let me reiterate some major points here. Like US postal workers who seem to be federal employees with employee contributions, a total of 12% of my wages have been paid to the Social Security Administration since the 1970s. I also get taxed for Medicare.

As do most of us. Including me while on active duty.

Originally posted by hplc

Last we argued this, ad naseum, the American worker holds federal bonds in a trust account that was $2.7 trillion. The Social Security Administration has never run at a deficit since 1983.

You cling to those factoids without thought, hp. READ the latest SS Trustee report. They're on the verge of having to tap that trust account to pay current entitlement claims. Medicare has a huge unfunded liability staring them in the face. We boomers are going to be expensive and the generations that are going to pay our entitlements is way too small to do that.

Originally posted by hplc

Here is where the hypocrisy comes in. Your retirement and your Tricare are line items in the federal budget. There are no funds for your pension. You never paid a portion of your salary into it.

How is that hypocritical?

Originally posted by hplc

You Bullseye as a retired federal employee have argued more consistently against other pension systems like teacher pensions or the state employee pension systems that this is somehow like your retirement and they are not.

That's true, and that's the point. It seems slightly distorted to have unions negotiating for wages and benefits while at the same time donating millions if not billions to the politicians they're negotiating with.

Originally posted by hplc

I know what Paul Ryan thinks and I know what you think. I think the pensions systems that have not had contributions should go first. Like the line item expenses on the DOD for retirement gets the cuts before say the $2.7 trillion obligation and debt to the American worker gets the axe.

There IS no obligation to the American worker, hp. That's the point I've tried for years to get across to you. The money you pay in goes immediately out to current retirees and MC patients. See, when I enlisted I signed a contract which contained, amongst a lot of other stuff a schedule of retirement benefits and a guarantee of healthcare. Maybe you didn't know but originally that HC guarantee was to be at military facilities ONLY, both for me and my families. Because that was overloading military medical facilities Congress created Tricare to offload dependents and retirees.

Originally posted by hlpc

And perhaps this argument is too complex for you to understand. To my way of thinking you are standing in a very large glass house.

Your way of thinking is to be blunt - F'd up. Don't pull this "it's too complex for you" BS, I'm every bit as smart as you and understand both Tricare and our countries fiscal system far better. I have told you over and over and over again I want an efficient and affective healthcare system for all Americans who want it and I want it to provide the services THEY want not what some empty suit in Washington wants.

Originally posted by hplc

And Paul Ryan gives very little thought to the social costs when he derails a system that has been in place for close to 100 years.

Just because a system is in place doesn't mean it's the only possible one nor that it's the best for our country. Do a little study about what it's taken to keep SS and MC functional. And research just how well defined benefit retirement systems are doing. You may learn something.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise for to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson.

Then again, I suppose it is pretty unfair that private jet airplane maintenance has not been tax deductible while those stupid kids trying to get a higher education are leaving school with only $100k in debt.

You're not allowed to point this out or even speculate that it won't be win for the little guy unless you talk to a CPA first (according to six-figure earner/braggart Chargers#guy).

Yeah, I don't think there is any probably about it. We're handing another fortune to the already crazy wealthy and just hoping they decide to return it to us at some point, rather than funnel the money to the poor and middle classes who will create demand by spending. Oh, and in the meantime, we'll continue to explode the deficit, unless we can find a way to

The economy has been growing pretty well for years now. Apparently GOP congressmen and women have not heard of the law of diminishing returns.

Then again, I suppose it is pretty unfair that private jet airplane maintenance has not been tax deductible while those stupid kids trying to get a higher education are leaving school with only $100k in debt.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise for to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson.

Reagan created a huge deficit and the economy stalledout out during Bush. The tech boom would have happened either way under Clinton.

Wrong...

Reagan cut taxes from the abrasive 70%, to 28%. The economy took off, revenues to the government doubled instead of fell, and by January 1989, when Reagan left office there were 105.7 million jobs, which was a phenomenal result.

Under Clinton....
The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

Reagan

President Reagan picked up where Kennedy left off, slashing the top personal rate from 70% all the way down to 28%. The historic tax relief triggered record new business start-ups and small-business expansion.

As in the '60s, tax revenues exploded throughout the '80s as the economy boomed. Between 1982, when the first round of Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts went into effect, and 1990, when President George H.W. Bush broke his no-new-taxes pledge, individual tax receipts jumped 57% to $467 billion.

Clinton

Obama says he wants to go back to the higher personal income "tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. ... That's part of what took us from deficits to surpluses."

In fact, those budget surpluses didn't materialize until after Clinton in 1997 reluctantly signed a GOP tax bill that cut the capital-gains rate to 20% from 28%.

The result was dramatic. Tax receipts from capital gains ballooned as stock and other capital investment more than tripled.

Between 1996 and 2000, "the increase in capital gains revenues accounted for a little over 20% of the total increase in federal revenues," former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said.

For the first time, individual tax receipts hit $1 trillion, before peaking in 2000 from the dot-com bust and Clinton recession.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise for to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson.